THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13540/16
Irina Alekseyevna BEREGOVAYA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 March 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 February 2016,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Irina Alekseyevna Beregovaya, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Knyaginino, Nizhniy Novgorod Region.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr A. Fedorov, the Head of Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr M. Galperin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
On 12 December 2013 the applicant was convicted of fraud by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow. Two of the prosecution witnesses, Mr and Ms Ye., did not appear at the trial; their pre-trial statements were read out into evidence.
On 18 June 2014 the applicant’s conviction was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court. On 7 April 2015 the Moscow City Court and on 13 August 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to accept for consideration the applicant’s cassation appeals.
On 13 May 2015 the application was communicated to the Government.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about inability to examine at the trial the prosecution witnesses.
THE LAW
The Government in their submissions to the Court stated that the present application is lodged out of time and is, therefore, inadmissible. They highlighted that the application was lodged on 13 February 2016, which is more than six months after the delivery of the appeal judgment by the Moscow City Court.
The Court must examine whether the applicant complied with the time‑limit prescribed in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court notes that it had previously concluded in Kashlan v. Russia ((dec.), no. 60189/15, § 29, 19 April 2016) that the new cassation review procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 2014, does not constitute an ordinary remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and therefore does not have to be exhausted by the applicants before lodging a complaint with this Court.
The Court notes that the applicant’s conviction was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 18 June 2014, which is more than six months prior to the date of introduction of the present application, i.e. 13 February 2016. Accordingly, the application was lodged out of time and must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 April 2018.
Fatoş AracıHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy